1. Darwin’s Nightmare: Directed by Hubert Sauper, Released 2004
2. Darwin’s nightmare outlines, in vivid detail, the situation of the fishing population on Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Africa. There is a huge fishing industry in the area and many thousands of tons of fish are taken out of the lake and shipped around the world every year. While there is certainly profit to be had in this industry, none of it can be found among the local population with the exception of few factory owners and operators that process the fish before it is shipped out. In fact the business is so lucrative, that the planes which ship out the fish regularly bring little if anything back. They show up empty and leave with several tons of food at a time. With all that food being shipped out, one would not think food would be a concern for the local citizens. However, the film shows that the vast majority of the people there are starving and surviving off of the scraps of fish left by the processing plants. Hundreds of children are shown homeless, roaming the streets, huffing melted plastic to keep their minds of their stomachs and their unfortunate lives. The film never directly argues for anything, it simply tells the story and lets the viewer form their own opinion of what is going on.
3. This film hints at several sustainability issues, some for subtle than others. Probably the most obvious issue would e the way trade is conducted with the Lake Victoria regions of Tanzania. It cannot even truly be said to be trade because that would imply that each side is giving and receiving something. It is repeated throughout the film that the trade “planes come empty.” How can it be sustainable to take food out of a region and give nothing back? Such linear movement of goods robs Tanzania of resources and is not sustainable. On the political side, one would expect Tanzania to do something since its citizens starve while they ship out tons of food. Either the government is corrupt and will not do anything about it, which is obviously an obstacle to sustainability, or pressure from an outside source like the WTO is preventing them from doing something about it. The WTO and similar globalization based organizations have been notorious for preventing small nations from helping themselves for the sake of “free trade.” Many argue that free trade should come after “fair trade” and this example could be a clear case in favor of such thinking. If free trade causes those who produce thousands of tons of food to starve, is it a good thing for the world as a whole? The title of the film eludes to yet another sustainability issue. The fish in the lake that are being harvested were not native to the lake. They were introduced several decades ago and have destroyed most of the lake ecosystem by eating almost everything else in the lake. While the practice of introducing non-native species has been severely cut down throughout the world, there is now the problem of unintentional introduction through global trade. Smaller animals can be transported with foods that travel thousands of miles around the world relatively quickly and there have been cases where such creatures have had disastrous consequences on other ecosystems (the zebra mussel for example <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_mussel>).
4. One of the best aspects of the film, and probably the most compelling would be the way that the film simply showed the story of the people there without any kind of narrator or “talking heads” going on. The story became very personal, especially because of the way the film kept coming back the same few people while still introducing new information and details as it went along. By developing my sympathies for the people in the movie, it does a much better job of convincing me that something needs to be done, and now, then other possible methods. Additionally, even though the film was very personal and story like, the filmmakers did stop at some points to show statistics and the like, which helped to back what the people were saying in the film. You could not accuse the film makers of simply selecting the worst off people to film so long as you trusted that their facts came from legitimate sources.
5. Overall, the film was very convincing. It definitely portrayed the issues well and left very little room for arguments that there is nothing wrong with what is going on in Tanzania. One problem with the film as a whole however is that it provides absolutely no potential solutions to the problem. It shows no one trying to tackle the problem (which may be part of the point) and does nothing to try and develop ideas for solutions. As such it leaves the viewer with little hope for Tanzania and feeling that there is nothing that can be done about it, on a personal or even larger level.
6. This film leaves the viewer wondering what the political situation is like in Tanzania. Many African nations are torn by wars that make helping the people there very difficult. Additionally, corruption is often a factor in the poor conditions of the citizenry and it would be interesting to see if this was a factor. It would also be interesting to determine where exactly the companies that make money off the fish are located and just how much money they make. An environmental study into the impacts of the non-native fish and how long they are anticipated to last (will they eat themselves into extinction?) would be relevant to determining the full scope of the situation and what the best way to help the people there would be.
7. This film probably best addresses an audience that is already moderately aware of sustainability problems because of its style. Since it tells the story of the people of Tanzania without giving any background or explanation, the film would be most effective for someone equipped to piece together the information into a broader understanding of sustainability. Students would be a good example of such an audience. Though it is unlikely that any one film is going to change the way people behave, this film is certainly eye opening and may make people more aware of where their food and other goods come from. I think that many people purchase goods without ever considering where they came from, who made them, and under what conditions. I doubt this film will dent the fish industry, but if it can make some people think about the fish they are about to eat for an obscene amount of money at some fancy restaurant, then it was at least somewhat successful.
8. As previously mentioned, the point does nothing with regards to providing solutions to the problems described. Additionally, the film does not imply any immediate places where intervention could be sufficiently effective. In the film, pilots of the planes were listening to a UN radio broadcast calling for aid for food the region, so obviously there are people concerned with the region. However, food aid is not a long term solution. If the government could be convinced to move in and stop the exploitation of the area, and especially to stop the exporting of the fish, that could help, but would be greatly opposed by international organizations and companies as mentioned above. Perhaps a possible solution could be to require that the factories provide some percentage of their processed fish (the actual food, not the scraps) as charitable food to the region
9. While the film did not provide solutions to the problem, I think it actually would have detracted from the style of the film to do so because it would have had to have broken its narrative character. However, what it could have done is show more of the politics of what was going on. The government was completely absent from the film even though both the citizens and even the factory owners and pilots and such appeared with frequency. Additionally, for the sake of less aware audiences, a bit of an introduction either by a speaker or in the form of text could be helpful and would enhance the ability of the film to be used for educational purposes.
Darwin’s Nightmare
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. Darwin’s Nightmare: Directed by Hubert Sauper, Released 2004
2. Darwin’s nightmare outlines, in vivid detail, the situation of the fishing population on Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Africa. There is a huge fishing industry in the area and many thousands of tons of fish are taken out of the lake and shipped around the world every year. While there is certainly profit to be had in this industry, none of it can be found among the local population with the exception of few factory owners and operators that process the fish before it is shipped out. In fact the business is so lucrative, that the planes which ship out the fish regularly bring little if anything back. They show up empty and leave with several tons of food at a time. With all that food being shipped out, one would not think food would be a concern for the local citizens. However, the film shows that the vast majority of the people there are starving and surviving off of the scraps of fish left by the processing plants. Hundreds of children are shown homeless, roaming the streets, huffing melted plastic to keep their minds of their stomachs and their unfortunate lives. The film never directly argues for anything, it simply tells the story and lets the viewer form their own opinion of what is going on.
3. This film hints at several sustainability issues, some for subtle than others. Probably the most obvious issue would e the way trade is conducted with the Lake Victoria regions of Tanzania. It cannot even truly be said to be trade because that would imply that each side is giving and receiving something. It is repeated throughout the film that the trade “planes come empty.” How can it be sustainable to take food out of a region and give nothing back? Such linear movement of goods robs Tanzania of resources and is not sustainable. On the political side, one would expect Tanzania to do something since its citizens starve while they ship out tons of food. Either the government is corrupt and will not do anything about it, which is obviously an obstacle to sustainability, or pressure from an outside source like the WTO is preventing them from doing something about it. The WTO and similar globalization based organizations have been notorious for preventing small nations from helping themselves for the sake of “free trade.” Many argue that free trade should come after “fair trade” and this example could be a clear case in favor of such thinking. If free trade causes those who produce thousands of tons of food to starve, is it a good thing for the world as a whole? The title of the film eludes to yet another sustainability issue. The fish in the lake that are being harvested were not native to the lake. They were introduced several decades ago and have destroyed most of the lake ecosystem by eating almost everything else in the lake. While the practice of introducing non-native species has been severely cut down throughout the world, there is now the problem of unintentional introduction through global trade. Smaller animals can be transported with foods that travel thousands of miles around the world relatively quickly and there have been cases where such creatures have had disastrous consequences on other ecosystems (the zebra mussel for example <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_mussel>).
4. One of the best aspects of the film, and probably the most compelling would be the way that the film simply showed the story of the people there without any kind of narrator or “talking heads” going on. The story became very personal, especially because of the way the film kept coming back the same few people while still introducing new information and details as it went along. By developing my sympathies for the people in the movie, it does a much better job of convincing me that something needs to be done, and now, then other possible methods. Additionally, even though the film was very personal and story like, the filmmakers did stop at some points to show statistics and the like, which helped to back what the people were saying in the film. You could not accuse the film makers of simply selecting the worst off people to film so long as you trusted that their facts came from legitimate sources.
5. Overall, the film was very convincing. It definitely portrayed the issues well and left very little room for arguments that there is nothing wrong with what is going on in Tanzania. One problem with the film as a whole however is that it provides absolutely no potential solutions to the problem. It shows no one trying to tackle the problem (which may be part of the point) and does nothing to try and develop ideas for solutions. As such it leaves the viewer with little hope for Tanzania and feeling that there is nothing that can be done about it, on a personal or even larger level.
6. This film leaves the viewer wondering what the political situation is like in Tanzania. Many African nations are torn by wars that make helping the people there very difficult. Additionally, corruption is often a factor in the poor conditions of the citizenry and it would be interesting to see if this was a factor. It would also be interesting to determine where exactly the companies that make money off the fish are located and just how much money they make. An environmental study into the impacts of the non-native fish and how long they are anticipated to last (will they eat themselves into extinction?) would be relevant to determining the full scope of the situation and what the best way to help the people there would be.
7. This film probably best addresses an audience that is already moderately aware of sustainability problems because of its style. Since it tells the story of the people of Tanzania without giving any background or explanation, the film would be most effective for someone equipped to piece together the information into a broader understanding of sustainability. Students would be a good example of such an audience. Though it is unlikely that any one film is going to change the way people behave, this film is certainly eye opening and may make people more aware of where their food and other goods come from. I think that many people purchase goods without ever considering where they came from, who made them, and under what conditions. I doubt this film will dent the fish industry, but if it can make some people think about the fish they are about to eat for an obscene amount of money at some fancy restaurant, then it was at least somewhat successful.
8. As previously mentioned, the point does nothing with regards to providing solutions to the problems described. Additionally, the film does not imply any immediate places where intervention could be sufficiently effective. In the film, pilots of the planes were listening to a UN radio broadcast calling for aid for food the region, so obviously there are people concerned with the region. However, food aid is not a long term solution. If the government could be convinced to move in and stop the exploitation of the area, and especially to stop the exporting of the fish, that could help, but would be greatly opposed by international organizations and companies as mentioned above. Perhaps a possible solution could be to require that the factories provide some percentage of their processed fish (the actual food, not the scraps) as charitable food to the region
9. While the film did not provide solutions to the problem, I think it actually would have detracted from the style of the film to do so because it would have had to have broken its narrative character. However, what it could have done is show more of the politics of what was going on. The government was completely absent from the film even though both the citizens and even the factory owners and pilots and such appeared with frequency. Additionally, for the sake of less aware audiences, a bit of an introduction either by a speaker or in the form of text could be helpful and would enhance the ability of the film to be used for educational purposes.